We really enjoyed naming Vivaty, the newest 3D virtual world experience that launched today. The product is truly amazing, and we had a lot of fun exploring the creative naming directions inherent in such a rich technology. 

Vivaty is like Second Life, but better, much much better! It doesn’t require downloading clunky software onto your computer and therefore it isn’t as slow as molasses (ahem, Second Life). Instead, Vivaty is a lightweight application that can be seamlessly embedded in various web and social-networking sites like Facebook and Yahoo.

We got to see and play with a demo of the product while we were working on the naming project. And rest assured that I, Catchword’s resident social networking fiend, will be signing up for my beta Vivaty account ASAP!

Read the great NY Times article here, or read the PDF here.

In honor of Saint Patrick’s Day, Catchword’s naming leprechauns have been busy compiling statistics on Green names — and implications for marketers.

It seems everyone’s jumping on the green brandwagon.  Trademark filings incorporating “green” jumped 143% between 2006 and 2007, versus under 5% for “red” and “blue.”  Clorox’s recent introduction of Green Works, a line of biodegradable household cleaners, exemplifies the trend.

“Eco” and “earth” names also showed huge gains (almost doubling), while more general terms like “nature,” “natural,” and “pure” grew less than 20%.

What does all this mean for marketers, going forward?  Are “green” names still golden?  Or are there greener pastures?  Here’s our take on green naming:

(more…)

Our newest name has just been introduced. Meet Flybridge Capital Partners.

In conjunction with their announcement of a new $280 million fund, IDG Venture Boston has introduced an entirely new identity. Catchword worked with the partners of the firm to develop this new brand name. In the press release, the company had this to say, “As you may know, a flybridge is the open deck above the main bridge on a boat where you go to get a different and better perspective on the water in front of you.  It is a vantage point to better see the water, fish, rocks, land and more.  The name symbolizes who we are and what we do best - collaborate, partner, and provide guidance and perspective.”

We just love the solid reinforcement of their positioning through the brand name. As a naming firm, this is exactly the kind of fresh creative solution we aim to provide: Distinctive, but relevant.

Who’s next?

Ford recently announced that it is relaunching the Fiesta as a worldwide brand (see article). I love this naming strategy, but it doesn’t always work. Ford’s justification is two-fold: the name already has some existing equity (albeit, not all positive) and by using one name in multiple markets, they can trim down their marketing expense.

But from a naming consultant’s perspective, they got lucky. Fiesta is one of those words that has near-global awareness. The Spanish word (meaning festival or celebration, from the Latin festum/festa  meaning “feast”) has transcended borders and is now commonly understood by native English speakers (as well as speakers of dozens of other languages). Because the car is targeted at new car buyers (typically a younger demographic), the idea of a celebration ties in nicely with the broader marketing message for the car (again, across geographic borders).

Creating names with such international consistency is tough. Just ask the folks at VW. Can anyone spell Tuoreg? Taureg? Touareg? Or ask the folks at Buick. Who knew that Lacrosse was a Canadian slang term for masturbation? If they had done the linguistic research we offer our clients, they would have known before they launched.

Some of you may want to include the infamous “Nova” in this mix. However, let us dispel the myth once more. Yes,  when literally translated, “no va” would mean “doesn’t go” in Spanish. Yet the car is still sold (quite successfully) in Spanish-speaking countries. This is possible because people don’t usually parse brand names this way. I love the counter-example offered by Snopes.com: would anyone think twice about buying a dinette set that used the brand “Notable”? (Get it?)

Anyway, back to the subject at hand. Kudos to Ford for coming up with (and now relaunching) a brand name that sends the right message to a global audience. If any of you readers out there are looking for a new brand name that functions equally well in multiple international markets, Catchword can help.

From the “What Were They Thinking” file, BBC News brings us word of yet another naming fiasco. Here’s what happens when folks decide to try naming on their own instead of working with a trusted naming consultant.

The product is a bed for young girls. In either a desperate ploy for free (but negative) publicity or a remarkably gauche demonstration of literary ingnorance, Woolworths decided to name the bed “Lolita”. Oops.

Here’s the rest of the BBC story.

Dear Woolworths: We know you need a new name for one of your bed models. We are here for you. Please call us. Leave name development to the pros.

As a naming consultant, I know coming up with new product names is hard. But still, I have to pick on a new one I saw advertised recently: Smart Taste (a new pasta product from Ronzoni). It’s not that the name is horrible; I’m sure plenty of people will still buy the product. It’s that the name doesn’t have any charisma. This is exactly the kind of name I would expect to perform well in a poorly-designed naming research study. “Which of these names best describes the product you see here?” Ugggh. Such a silly question to ask.

We know naming research can be done well. It’s just that so often, it is not. It isn’t about what the name describes. It’s not even about what name respondents *say* they like the best. It’s about the associations that each name candidate evokes. When you ask associative questions, you get answers like “This name feels energetic” or “This name sounds friendly.” If you want your new name to communicate ease of use, associations like energetic and friendly are close to perfect. Too few marketers ask the right question when testing names.

Had typical research methodologies been applied when Jobs and Woz were launching their company, we might have EduComp or GraphiComp instead of Apple. And instead of Yahoo, we might have SearchSmart or InfoSeek (oh, wait …). Instead of Nike, we might have QuickFoot or SportKix.

YAWN.

Please people: If you’re going to test your name candidates, do us all a favor. Ask the right questions, and don’t let respondents steer you away from the truly great naming solution. Charisma and style count for just as much as semantics when naming a new product or company.

I almost forgot to mention this great coverage that one of our recent clients received in the New York Times. Check out Stuart Elliot’s write-up on our new name Daptiv. (For a PDF, click here.)

Product names can take many forms. There are fancy product names, like Blackberry. There are descriptive product names, like Raisin Bran. And of course, there are product names that aren’t really names at all, just model numbers. Some of these product names fade into the woodwork, serving only to help customers by the specific product they want. Others serve a vital role in the branding process, and if not taken seriously, these product names (for that is what they really are) can mess up the program.

Take the aircraft industry. In recent years, both Boeing and Airbus have made significant errors in their product naming efforts. Earlier this year, Airbus launched its newest, and biggest airplane, the A380.

This thing is so massive, it hardly looks like a commercial plane. Sure seems like it would be worthy of a more significant number. Maybe a 400? Even a 1000?

But of course, Airbus is merely following suit to Boeing’s now-ancient product naming blunder. When Boeing introduced the 747 decades ago, it should have used a more significant number. Had they switched to the 800 series, they would have left room for future planes to fit in the system. Now, they have smaller planes with bigger numbers (757, 767).

Free naming advice to both companies: Maybe you could use different series of numbers to indicate the double-decker shape or the four-engine power. Now THAT would make sense. Am I asking too much?

Ok ok – I know Boeing and Airbus are not exactly selling to average consumers. Maybe they are excused from the rules of intelligent product naming. Maybe we can cut them some slack. But Canon has no such excuse. If any of you have tried to sort through the line of Canon digital cameras lately, you surely share my confusion over how the heck they name their products. It’s almost like they are throwing darts at a wall of numbers. No logic to the system whatsoever. As a naming consultant, I want to offer my services.

Dear Canon:

Please call me. You need help naming your products. Let me offer some free advice.

1) Start by grouping your products into logical families. Calling everything an Elf, then switching everything to Powershot does not help your consumers understand the differences between Camera A and Camera B.
2) Once the families have been established (based on size, features, or even target audience), use consistent numbers to reference each one. Group all the products without a viewfinder in the 700s. Group all the products with image stabilization in the 800s. Use a system that your consumers can digest and understand so they can find the right camera for their needs.
3) Use product numbers to correspond to feature upgrades, not just date of introduction. It sure would make sense if the Powershot 1000 was a better camera than the Powershot 850. Maybe using the biggest number for the smallest camera is not the best idea.

That’s it for the free advice. If you want more naming help, please feel free to call me. I’m a professional naming consultant, and I am here for you.

That goes for the rest of you too.

Enterprise IG’s recent rebranding to The Brand Union has created quite a stir in the naming and branding community. The general perception seems to range from “yawn” to “those idiots”. And really, who can argue? It’s just another “brand___” name in a sea of “brand___” competitors.

But to evaluate their choice, I think you really have to break it down into two components: the naming strategy and the naming execution. IMHO, the naming strategy actually makes sense. I’m all for coming up with distinctive names that stand out in the competitive landscape, but a company the size of BrandUnion, with the pedigree it has, doesn’t really need to stand out. Does IBM stand out? Does Southwest Airlines? How about General Motors? Folks who stand out just for the sake of standing out (um, does anyone remember MarchFirst?) often end up following the dodo bird.

The strategic issue this rebranding work is designed to solve is that Enterprise IG was spending too much energy convincing people it was a branding company. Their previous name was generic, irrelevant, and downright awkward. The new name, while not perfect, at least puts them in the right competitive set. The end result should be that the company can now spend less energy telling people it should be considered along with Interbrand and more energy telling people why it is better than Interbrand. Of course, we all know the real truth: Catchword is better than either firm, but that is for another blog entry …

However … and this is a really big “but” … the new identity certainly suffers from a few major execution problems. Consider the following issues that any good naming consultant would have pointed out:

1)Which is it, “THE Brand Union” or just “Brand Union”? The logo says “Brand Union” (at least I think so, it’s awfully hard to read — another ding against the execution) while the URL is “thebrandunion.com”. It looks as though “brandunion.com” is for sale — I’m shocked they haven’t tried to procure the easier and more intuitive domain. Regardless, it seems silly to launch BOTH names at the same time. Pick one and run with it. Changing names is confusing enough with out clouding the waters this way.

2) While I laud their effort to join the competitive set by using the word “brand” in their name, I would have expected something more from a firm of this stature. When we named our company, we explicitly ruled out names that included the word “brand” because the term was so cluttered and downright overused. The name development team at EIG/TBU could have placed the company in the right competitive set while still being more distinctive. The old name was generic, irrelevant and awkward. The new name is just generic. I guess two out of three ain’t bad.

3) If you’re going to use “brand”, at least pair it with something exciting. Union sounds so … Jimmy Hoffa. Not exactly a cutting edge creative association. Very blue collar. Very “soon to be on the missing persons list”. I wouldn’t even know where to start digging.

4) I’m not from New York, but even I’ve heard of Grand Union. Quite the retail hot spot in the Big Apple. Not a trademark issue, but certainly a mindshare issue. Maybe they don’t have any customers in New York. Riiiiight.

All in all, I’d give them a B+ on strategy and a C- on execution. Not exactly the best testimonial for the kind of work they are likely to provide their clients. But you didn’t hear it from me.

I’ve been experimenting with Pandora lately, that increasingly popular music matching website otherwise known as the “music genome project”. Pretty cool stuff actually. So far, fairly accurate. It hasn’t once suggested I’d like The Who (sorry sorry - inside joke).

Most people have some idea of who Pandora was, or at least they know something about a box (actually a jar). Size, shape, material unimportant. You just don’t want to open the box. Don’t open that box. Bad inside the box. World of hurt inside the box, all that. I imagine a goodly number people don’t know the whole story, what was inside the box, why opening it would be naughty, etc. Probably doesn’t matter that much. At least in terms of brand names, common understandings and associations with words and ideas are usually more important than complete but lesser-known story details anyway. So I’m not gonna point out all the story DNA the genome project seems to have overlooked. I’m just gonna commend them on having taken the time to explain their interpretation and use of the name. Man, I love it when companies do that.

According to The Music Genome Project:

The name Pandora means “all gifted” in Greek. In ancient Greek mythology, Pandora received many gifts from the Gods, including the gift of music, from Apollo. She was also, as we all know, insatiably curious.
Unlike those Gods of old, however, we celebrate that virtue and have made it our mission to reward the musically curious among us with a never-ending experience of music discovery.
It’s also important to note that at the bottom of Pandora’s box was Hope…

So I don’t think the closing emphasis on that remaining virtue was really necessary, but otherwise I like the interpretation. Sounds like Pandora was really just an amazingly gifted if slightly nosy little girl, not a mankind killer at all (whoops! Sorry).

PS: Note to Pandora. There seems to be some question in the literature about the meaning of the name “Pandora”. One interpretation is that the name means “all-gifted”, but another suggests it means “all-giving” - perhaps an even better interpretation for your brand??